You are here

How orchestras look does matter

Max Hole paints a pessimistic picture of orchestral concerts but he’s right to cite the problems on stage

Universal Music chairman Max Hole has told the Association of British Orchestras Conference that orchestras are behind the times and concerts are frustratingly dull – in a visual sense at least. Cue the expected torrent of ‘you don’t get its’ from an industry that would prefer to see itself wither and die than look long and hard at what it does very poorly indeed.

One thing it does poorly too often is on-stage presentation. Thankfully I can look past the ill-fitting 19th-century waiter uniforms and enjoy the performance for what it is musically. But at classical concerts, I’m not a normal person: I’m a regular, an insider and an obsessive. Research tells us that a good number of people attend orchestral concerts once every few years. There’s a good chance it takes that ‘few year’ gap for them to forget the fact that the experience wasn’t all that overwhelming.

A few weeks ago I sat in a London orchestral concert and the person I was with – not a regular concertgoer – found the experience depressing. Not because she didn’t hear music she loved being performed well, but because the musicians looked a ‘mess’ on stage and oozed a general air of not giving a damn. Being there for the music, I hadn’t really noticed until she pointed it out: 40 shades of black (the bright lights cruelly exposing the textile discord), many of the mens’ tails ill-fitting and creased, and female players that seemed to think it was permissible to wear the first thing they found in the wardrobe that was dark enough to pass for the colour. These people are sat on stage in front of 3000 paying guests. Sorry, but not looking either smart or stylish simply isn’t good enough.

It’s not so much about the style of dress itself – though you have to wonder why most conductors have mutually chosen to dress as Bond villains these days and what effect that has on their perception among the wider public – as it is about executing your chosen dress code well. Tails should fit, fabric should be clean and not creased, and a general attempt should be made to advise female players on the tone a particular ensemble would like to adopt (though most orchestras haven’t considered how odd it looks to have men in 19th-century waiting-on-table costumes and women in contemporary dress – a strange inversion of classical music’s inbuilt sexism).

Dress, though, is only the start. Orchestral musicians work inspiringly hard and demonstrate selfless skill often under difficult circumstances. But they also have a job many would kill for. That same orchestra that looked so appalling on stage happened to play a decent enough concert. But the message they projected with their faces and body language was that they’d rather have been elsewhere. Many of them looked miserable, tired and uninspired. Given London’s inexorable orchestral schedule, they probably were. But if you’ve lost your love and passion for orchestral music – or at least one that you can muster for 80% of concerts under well-meaning and talented conductors – it’s time to move on and let someone else who hasn’t take your place. If you don’t, you’ll help kill off the profession, which is grossly irresponsible, profoundly depressing and pretty unfair on the rest of us.

A few weeks later a different orchestra on the same stage exchanged broad smiles with each other as they capered their way through Sibelius’s Third Symphony. They beamed upwards at the conductor, helped their colleagues into difficult entries with encouraging stares, and became physically determined and fearsome when the music slipped underneath its dark Sibelian clouds. It wasn’t a youth or conservatory orchestra (which I’m increasingly drawn to these days as they breathe life into whatever they play). It was another of London’s five concert-giving symphony orchestras. The performance felt joyous, contemporary, sharp, hard-hitting, involving and utterly sincere – qualities that create ‘accessibility’ by default without the need for any introductory lecture from a conductor.

In my first music industry job, as an usher at The Bridgewater Hall in Manchester, I remember a comment made to all the front of house staff by John Summers, chief executive of the Hallé orchestra and a former professional cellist. ‘We are all in show-business – the orchestra included’, he said, and none of us could escape the fact that he was bang on the money. In British cities, people pay to watch and hear orchestras entertain them for an evening, and each time they do so, those orchestras might well have won their custom over a play, a musical or even a football match. If musicians think its enough to play the right notes in the way the conductor has asked as if they are ‘just doing a job’, in the same way as a person who processes credit card receipts, then Max Hole is right – they are doomed.

Venues have a role to play as well, as do fellow audience members. Last night I witnessed a performance of Mahler’s Das Lied von der Erde which was in many ways perfect; when I tried to fathom why the final pages felt so strangely lacking in atmosphere, I looked around at the brightly lit Royal Festival Hall and willed someone somewhere to dim the lights just an iota. Max Hole’s comments about altering lighting at concerts are sure to get the traditionalists in a frothy panic, but bright doctors-surgery lighting in our concert halls is one example of venues not tuning in to the atmosphere of what they’re presenting. That, and it probably encourages the current trend for coughing and spluttering at every opportunity.

Let’s be clear. Orchestral music is one of the most gob-smacking, beautiful and life-affirming miracles that you can legally pay to experience in this country. In many ways it speaks for itself and doesn’t need gimmicks to help it along. But what it does need is the right frame of mind from those people who have the outstanding talent to be able to earn a living from delivering it, and a little sympathy and forethought from the people who manage the buildings that host it. It’s the quality of the music that will ensure the future of our orchestras, so let’s remind ourselves why we fell in love with it in the first place.

Andrew Mellor is a former Reviews Editor of Gramophone magazine, and is now a contributor to the magazine, as well as writing widely for orchestras, opera companies, periodicals and websites in the UK and Scandinavia.

Please do, Phil. There is a serious point there, though, which is that our industry is so inward-looking - as you know very well. Every time an idea is condemned it's usually because people are viewing it from the perspective of a person who is schooled, steeped and employed within the classical music 'bubble'. That ain't going to grow audiences and share brilliant music.

Wanting to dim the lights is a typically pointless reaction to a concert performance. I'd rather be sure that the orchestra can actually read their music. Conversely, excessively bright lights on stage are an annoyance.

Personally I don't really look much at the orchestra. Or what soloists wear either. As long as they are comfortable. Same goes for audience. It really shouldn't matter. If it does, you're probably not listening.

Iff12, you have a level of engagement which is clearly different to the vast majority of people who might drop into a concert to enjoy a live music experience which is, by definition, visual as well as audio.

Those are the people Max Hole is talking about - and the people we should all be thinking about if we want orchestral music, art music, Gramophone, and the whole bundle of loveliness to have a future.

I don't know. Every event I go to (in London) is sold out, or nearly. Isn't that the difference? People flock to excellence or to something that seems like an event - Gergiev, Boulez, Salonen, Mutter, Kavakos, Bostridge, Uchida - so it seems to me there is no problem selling great events, there is a problem selling all of the rest when there is so much available. And the Proms sell out nearly everything. It can't quite be as you argue.

Well there are five symphony ochestras in London, many of them giving 2 concerts a week - these aren't necessarily 'high profile', conducted by the likes of Vassily Sinaisky, Neeme Jarvi, Enrique Mazzola etc - we know from research that most floating attenders aren't conscious of 'names' in classical music, they go because of what's on that night or repertoire they might have heard of. And these concerts mostly aren't sold out, these days some of them struggle to reach 80% capacity. For those people, these are effectively 'great events', at least they should be if the orchestras deliver and look sharp.

I wonder how far the state of concert halls can help or hinder audience development? The Barbican foyer is ugly and uncomfortable, the acoustic just barely passable, so really it is for enthusiasts and offers little sense of event or of a lovely evening out. The RFH has had a huge facelift, so does make you feel you have gone somehwere nice, but sadly the acoustic is still terrible (and now you can hear the trains outside - try it!) and anyone seated in the rear half of the hall has the sense of observing from a distance, rather then being involved in the music. I avoid RFH if I can't get a good seat and I've noticed that even at popular name concerts (Nicola Benedetti, for example) the rear of the hall is half empty - THAT is a bad experience indeed, and from there you can't even see what the orchestra is wearing or whether they glance at each other or not. The ROH by contrast has stars and a sense of occasion. And Robert le Diable - can't win 'em all.

I appreciate where you are coming from. But 'tails' are expensive. I guess they would soon become shabby when worn so much, and musicians probably aren't paid enough to be able to replace them every few years. Alas it's ages since I attended a concert. 'Superannuation' just doesn't allow for such luxuries. Therefore I can't remember whether the orchestra--probably the Auckland Symphonia, or whatever it is now called--looked well turned out.

That's precisely the point Laraine - and probably why Max Whole delivered his speech to the Association of British Orchestras rather than the Musicians Union.

Staff at airlines etc are put in uniforms paid for by their employers because their employers want them to look uniform, suave, smart, clean etc and reflect the quality of the brand. You don't dress yourself if you're an actor/newsreader so why on earth should musicians be expected to? Orchestras wouldn't let individual players design their website...so why let them walk onto a stage with no vetting of how good or bad they look? Time for orchestras to take some responsibility in this field.

Given the financial pressure most musical organisations currently face, (and historically have faced for years) in this country, your comparison of their players' appearance with that of airline staff, and the fact that airlines provide uniforms is utterly unrealistic. To compare the cost of airline uniforms with tailored sets of evening wear for male orchestra members, and evening dresses for their female colleagues is like trying to compare apples with pears. Sure they both grow on trees and are also eaten in a similar way, but there the similarity ends.

Players already have great financial strain placed on them since almost all of them (percussionists are normally exempt from this burden) have to provide the tools of their trade - violins, bows, strings, rehairs - very few instruments are owned by the orchestras themselves. Woodwind and brass players too, provide their own instruments, and none comes cheap. Violins cost upwards of £50,000 for a quality instrument. And players often need more than one instrument in case their 'first choice' one needs repair, or worse, is lost or even stolen.

Little wonder then that, with a likely starting salary of under £25K, and the necessary high cost of instruments, Savile Row tailored suits do not feature high on the agenda of the players in most orchestras.

Managing the finances of most orchestras in this country is a balancing act which Willie Walsh (former CEO of British Airways) would blanch at.

A male musician’s concert wardrobe typically includes a suit of tails, a white 'tuxedo', a dinner suit, at least four dress shirts, bow ties (white and black), waistcoats or cummerbunds, patent leather shoes and numerous pairs of black socks. An initial outlay in excess of £1000 for such items would not be an over-estimate. With a slightly lower figure for womens' concert wear of around £750 and an average of 80 musicians in a symphony orchestra - under your suggestion that employers provide their 'uniform', each management would need to find between £50K and £65K for starters.

As for the players’ on-stage demeanour, that is a management issue, and as such they should be trained to deal with it. But that’s another ‘can of worms’.

If you play for one of the freelance symphony orchestras in London as a rank and file member, and you accept 90% of the work, you'll earn a lot more than 25k per year.

But make up your mind - is this the organisation's cost (the BA comparison) or the individual's cost (as you also highlight)? If the latter, it's a fraction of the cost of the instruments you cite, so why should it be a problem? It isn't a problem for most players, who look very good. It wouldn't be for those who would do anything to put their training into use and get an orchestral job. It's like working in sales and being expected to look smart when you're at work closing deals. Estate agents must spend a few thousand on suits, the difference being those will go in and out of fashion (unlike, unfortunately, tail suits). This is everyday life.

If it's the organisation's cost, then it can be done as has been proved: the BBC Symphony Orchestra's black tie-shirt-suit is harmonised and tailored. When I worked at the London Philharmonic Orchestra some years ago we negotiated with Marks & Spencer to profile their new range of machine-washable dinner suits; as part of the marketing deal every member of the orchestra was given two. Orchestras abroad have proven that you can work mutually with clothing suppliers in an 'in-kind' way just as effectively (if not more so) than you can with wine/food/travel associates who often provide in-kind services.

Sadly, for most members of (non London-based) orchestras, it's going to be their cost, not the employer's. Heaven knows most regional orchestras (including the opera and ballet companies outside of London) are hard enough pressed without the added burden of trying to fund the outfits their members wear. And I'm not sure that sponsorship of 'uniform' such as you quote would be realistic - again - outside of London. True, about 25 years ago the CBSO managed to obtain a supply of white jackets from a major high street retailer, but the deal never progressed beyond that. I speak from 33 years experience as a professional musician - it's hard enough negotiating salaries and other remuneration (through one's Union) without trying to obtain £1000 to kit yourself out with clothes for the job, and providing an instrument is the other HUGE expense for the individual player.

Dress, though, is only the start. Orchestral musicians work inspiringly hard and demonstrate selfless skill often under difficult circumstances. But they also have a job many would kill for. That same orchestra that looked so appalling on stage happened to play a decent enough concert.